IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1009 of 2010()
1. M.P.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner had filed Bail application Nos. 7105 and 7106 of
2009 for anticipatory bail in Crime No. 242/2009 of
Sreekandapuram Police Station, Kannur District and Crime No.
77/2009 of Payyavoor Police Station, Kannur District. Those bail
applications were dismissed by the common order dated
11.12.2009. For the same relief, which was prayed for in B.A.
Nos.7105 and 7106/2009, the petitioner has filed these Bail
Applications.
2. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 11.12.2009
is extracted below:
“These Bail Applications are filed by
M.P. Muhammed Kunhi, who is the second
accused in Crime No.77/2009 of Payyavoor
Police Station and the sole accused in Crime
No.242/2009 of Sreekandapuram Police
Station. The offence alleged in Crime
No.77/2009 is under Section 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act, while the offence
B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 2
alleged in Crime No. 242/2009 is under
Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on
14/7/2009, a search was conducted in a
quarry owned by the first accused, P.D.
John @ Thankachan. On such search, the
police could find two fuse wires and 45
detonators. It was revealed that those
explosive substances were given to the first
accused by M.P. Muhammed Kunhi, the
petitioner herein. It would appear that
Payyavoor police gave information to
Seekandapuram Police, within whose
jurisdiction the petitioner resides and
carries on business. On 4/11/2009, Crime
No.242/2009 was registered before the
Sreekandapuram Police Station. A search
was conducted in a shop building in the
possession of the petitioner. The petitioner
was running a business under the name and
style “National Fire Works” in the building.
At the time when the police party reached
there, the building was found locked. On
enquiry to the neighbouring shop owner, he
stated that key of the shop room was
B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 3
handed over to him by the petitioner. The
police opened that shop room and found
key of another room in the same building.
That room was also opened. In that room,
large quantity of explosive substances were
found. The police found 1148 detonators,
4.5 Kgs of fuse wire and more than 110 Kgs
of Ammonium Nitrate.
3. The Investigating Officer could
not arrest the petitioner as he was
absconding. The petitioner has filed this
application for anticipatory bail without
disclosing the real facts. It is stated that the
building, where from the explosive
substances were recovered , does not
belong to him. There are records to indicate
that the room was taken on rent by the
petitioner. Neighbouring shop owner has
also given information that the room in
question was in the possession of the
petitioner. Necessary materials were
collected by the investigating officer to
show that the building in question is in the
possession of the petitioner. The offence
alleged against the petitioner is very
B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 4
serious in nature. Grant of anticipatory bail
cannot be made in such cases, where large
quantity of explosive substances were
found in the possession of the accused.
Discretionary relief under Section 438
cannot be granted in favour of the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of
the case. Therefore, I am of the view that
the petitioner is not entitled to an order
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to
the petitioner, it would adversely affect the
proper investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail
Applications are dismissed.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
Crime No.77/2009, anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.1
and that fact was omitted to be brought to the notice of this
Court while disposing of Bail Application Nos.7105 and
7106/2009. Even if it were brought to the notice of the Court, the
same order would have been passed, since the role played by the
first accused and second accused are quite different and distinct.
B.A. Nos. 1009 & 1010/2010 5
I do not think that there is any justifiable reasons or grounds for
entertaining a second round of applications for the same relief.
Accordingly, the Bail Applications are dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln